Technical faults: the refusal that usually fails

On this page 14

1. What the airline has to prove
2. Why technical faults are not extraordinary
3. The narrow category that genuinely is extraordinary
4. The second limb people forget
5. Translating the euphemisms
6. The knock-on delay argument
7. What to write back
8. What they will try next
9. Evidence worth keeping
10. Care and assistance apply regardless
11. The realistic picture
12. Why airlines keep making an argument they lose
13. If several of you were on the booking
14. One last thing worth checking

More flight compensation claims are refused on the basis of a technical fault than on any other ground, and it is, legally, close to the weakest argument an airline can make. The law on this has been settled against airlines for well over a decade, and yet the refusal letters keep coming, because a significant proportion of passengers accept them.

What the airline has to prove

Compensation is payable unless the airline can show the disruption was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Two limbs, and the airline must satisfy both. The burden sits entirely with the carrier — you are not required to disprove anything, and you are certainly not required to know what went wrong with the aircraft.

That allocation of proof is the practical foundation of every argument in this article. An airline that will not say what the fault was has not discharged its burden. An airline that names a fault but cannot show it was unforeseeable, or cannot show it had no reasonable way to recover the schedule, has not discharged it either.

Why technical faults are not extraordinary

The reasoning the courts have applied is straightforward once stated. Aircraft are complex machines operated intensively. They develop faults. Finding and fixing faults is not an unexpected intrusion into an airline's business — it is the business, and the maintenance departments, spare parts inventories and standby aircraft that airlines maintain exist precisely because faults are expected.

It follows that a technical problem revealed during routine maintenance, or arising in the ordinary course of operating the aircraft, is inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier's activity. Something inherent in your normal activity cannot sensibly be called extraordinary. The Court of Justice reached essentially that conclusion in Wallentin-Hermann, and subsequent cases narrowed the airlines' position further rather than widening it.

The consequence is that the overwhelming majority of mechanical delays are compensable. Not all — see below — but the default has been set against the airline, and the refusal letter you received was almost certainly generated by a process rather than by a lawyer looking at your flight.

The narrow category that genuinely is extraordinary

There is a real exception, and being honest about it makes the rest of your argument stronger.

A fault that is not inherent in normal operation can qualify. The clearest example is a hidden manufacturing defect affecting a whole aircraft type, revealed by the manufacturer or a regulator, which grounds the fleet. That is not something the airline could have found through its own maintenance and not something it caused. Sabotage or an act of terrorism affecting the aircraft is similarly outside normal operation. Damage caused by a third party — a ground vehicle striking the aircraft, or a bird strike — can also fall outside, because the originating event is not the airline's doing.

What these have in common is that the origin of the problem sits outside the carrier's sphere. A part that wore out, a system that failed in service, a component that maintenance should have caught: all inside.

The second limb people forget

Even where a cause is genuinely extraordinary, the airline is not finished. It must also show it took all reasonable measures to avoid the disruption. That means asking what it did once the problem appeared.

Was a spare aircraft available at that base? Could the flight have been operated by another aircraft in the fleet, or wet-leased? Could passengers have been re-routed onto a partner airline or even a competitor? Was there standby crew? A large carrier at its own hub with multiple daily frequencies has far more available to it than a small operator at an outstation at midnight, and the answer legitimately differs. But the question has to be answered, and it very often is not.

This is why a bird strike can still produce a payment. The strike itself is extraordinary; a twelve-hour delay afterwards may not be, if the inspection was unnecessarily drawn out or a replacement aircraft could have been brought in. Bird strikes in detail.

Translating the euphemisms

Airlines rarely write "technical fault" plainly. These are the phrases that mean it:

What the letter says	What it usually means	Claimable?
Operational reasons	Something the airline controlled, unspecified	Usually yes
Technical issue / aircraft defect	A mechanical fault	Usually yes
Unserviceable aircraft	The aircraft was broken	Usually yes
Awaiting a spare part	Fault plus a supply chain problem	Usually yes
Unscheduled maintenance	A fault found outside the planned programme	Usually yes
Aircraft rotation / knock-on delay	An earlier flight ran late	Depends on the first cause
Safety-related inspection	Could be either — ask what prompted it	Ask for detail
Manufacturer's airworthiness directive	A fleet-wide defect order	Possibly not

"Operational reasons" deserves special mention. It is the most common phrase in refusal letters and it means, almost by definition, a reason within the airline's operations. It is close to an admission. Treat it as one.

The knock-on delay argument

A very large share of technical-fault claims arrive dressed as something else: your flight was fine, but the aircraft came from somewhere else and that flight was delayed.

This only assists the airline if the original cause was extraordinary and it could not reasonably have recovered the schedule in between. If the first flight was delayed by a technical fault, the knock-on delay inherits that character and remains compensable — you cannot launder an ordinary cause by letting it propagate down the day.

So the question to ask is simple and specific: what caused the first delay in the rotation, and when? Airlines frequently decline to answer it, which is itself informative.

What to write back

If you receive a refusal citing a technical fault or extraordinary circumstances without detail, reply once with this. Do not argue; ask.

A meaningful proportion of refusals do not survive this letter, for a simple reason: producing the detail means either conceding the cause was ordinary, or putting in writing that an aircraft flew with a defect the airline knew about. Neither is attractive, so the claim is frequently just paid.

What they will try next

Expect one of three responses.

Payment. Common, and usually without explanation.

A slightly more detailed refusal. If it now names something genuinely outside normal operation — a fleet-wide airworthiness directive, third-party damage — weigh it honestly. If it merely restates "technical issue" in more words, escalate.

Silence. Treat as a refusal. Chase once, then escalate; do not spend six months exchanging letters. The escalation ladder.

Evidence worth keeping

You do not need technical evidence — that is the airline's burden — but a few things make the claim much easier to win:

• A screenshot of the app notification or departure board showing the delay and any reason given at the time. The reason announced on the day and the reason in the refusal letter are frequently different, and the inconsistency is useful.
• The time the aircraft doors opened at your destination, which is how arrival is legally measured.
• Any announcement you can quote — "a technical problem with the aircraft" said over the PA is a statement by the carrier.
• The flight number that actually operated, if you were moved.

The full evidence checklist.

Care and assistance apply regardless

Whatever the cause, and whether or not compensation is ultimately due, the airline owes you food and drink proportionate to the delay, and a hotel with transport if you are kept overnight. A technical fault is firmly within the airline's control, so there is no argument available to it here at all. If you were left to make your own arrangements, keep the receipts and claim them as a separate line from the compensation — they are not capped by the distance bands.

The realistic picture

Airlines refuse technical-fault claims because refusing works on enough people to be worth doing. The legal position has not meaningfully shifted in their favour in fifteen years. If your flight was delayed three hours or more by something mechanical, and the cause was not a fleet-wide defect order or third-party damage, the probability is that you are entitled to the money and that one properly framed letter is what stands between you and it.

Work out the figure on the calculator first, so the letter states a specific amount with the band and article attached. Vague claims invite vague refusals.

Why airlines keep making an argument they lose

It is worth understanding the economics, because it tells you how to behave. A refusal letter costs an airline almost nothing to send: it is automated, triggered by a cause code attached to the flight rather than by anyone assessing your particular case. Paying a claim costs the band amount multiplied by every passenger who asks.

If a refusal persuades even a third of claimants to drop out, it has paid for itself many times over, regardless of how the remaining claims eventually resolve. That is not a conspiracy; it is the predictable result of automating a decision whose downside is simply that some people write back.

The practical lesson is that the first refusal carries almost no information about the merits of your claim. It is not a considered legal assessment and it should not be treated as one. The second response — the one that comes after you have asked for the specific fault and the reasonable measures — is the first point at which a human has usually looked at your flight. That is the response worth reading carefully.

It also means persistence is unusually well rewarded here compared with most consumer disputes. You are not trying to change a decision someone reasoned their way to. You are asking for the decision to be made at all.

If several of you were on the booking

Compensation is per passenger, and a technical fault that delayed a family of four by four hours on a mid-haul route is €1,600, not €400. Name every passenger in the one claim rather than submitting separately: four separate claims on identical facts can and do come back with inconsistent answers, and reconciling them afterwards is more work than claiming properly once.

Children with their own seat and ticket are passengers like anyone else. Infants carried on a lap are the grey area, turning on whether a fare was charged for carriage; where one was, include them and let the airline argue otherwise.

One last thing worth checking

If you were moved onto a different flight number, claim against the flight that was actually scheduled to carry you, and give both numbers. Airlines occasionally close a claim on the basis that "the flight you have named operated on time" — which is true of the replacement and irrelevant to your claim.

Questions people ask about this